Oh, I'll bet Kong has no chance.

I hate to play the parsing game but Bush's statement today on Iraq begs us to read between the lines.

I'm going to spend a little more time on my opening comments than I usually do, but I'll save plenty of time for questions.

(Not that it'll do you any good since my answers are usually nonsensical)

Over the past three years, I have often addressed the American people to explain developments in Iraq. Some of these developments were encouraging, such as the capture of Saddam Hussein, the elections in which 12 million Iraqis defied the terrorists and voted for a free future and the demise of the brutal terrorist [Abu Musab al-]Zarqawi.

When he's not the "decider" he's the "explainer." Because his version of geopolitics is just way to complicated for us common folks.

Other developments were not encouraging, such as the bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, the fact that we did not find stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, and the continued loss of some of America's finest sons and daughters.

Yep, the death of U.S. troops can be defined simply as "not encouraging." Along those lines he could have said American soldier's deaths were "an annoyance" or, perhaps, a "bothersome development." Of course I might have used the term "a fucking crime." But that's just me.

(BTW- Bush didn't seem to think the failure to find WMDs was discouraging enough that he couldn't joke about it with the White House Press Corps a couple of years ago.)

We learned some key lessons from that early phase in the war. We saw how quickly al Qaeda and other extremist groups would come to Iraq to fight and try to drive us out. We overestimated the capability of the civil service in Iraq to continue to provide essential services to the Iraqi people.

We did not expect the Iraqi army, including the Republican Guard, to melt away in the way that it did in the face of advancing coalition forces.

Despite these early setbacks, some very important progress was made in the midst of an incredibly violent period

I don't understand why this last about the Republican Guard was included in the list of setbacks. This is a bad thing how? Seriously, it's just an idiotic statement and for that reason probably the only part of Bush's statement that was his own.

Iraqis formed an interim government that assumed sovereignty. The Iraqi people elected a transitional government; drafted and adopted the most progressive democratic constitution(*) in the Arab world; braved the car bombs and assassins to choose a permanent government under that constitution; and slowly began to build a capable national army.

(* Unless you happen to be a woman)

I'm confident this generation will answer that call and defeat and ideology that is bent on destroying America and all that we stand for.

Correct. That's why Republicans are trailing in polls. Conservatives and their ideology bent on destroying America will be stopped.

There's a bunch more there but it's all I can stand for now.

Ok, you die. You walk away with a severe limp.

It's so nice to see the White House has the Zarqawi death in perspective.

The import of the news was immediately clear to everybody in the room. Iraq, officials have acknowledged, is the single most important dark cloud hanging over this White House. Officials see the continued troubles there — and the sparse good news from there — as the single most important factor in the president's low approval ratings, hobbling his ability to pursue his agenda not only abroad but also at home.

Forget the beheadings and terrorist activity. Zarqawi was holding up the President's push to repeal the Paris Hilton tax.

Of course if he'd taken him out when he had the chance:

Failure to Hit Zarqawi's Camp By SCOT J. PALTROW Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL October 25, 2004; Page A3

As the toll of mayhem inspired by terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi mounts in Iraq, some former officials and military officers increasingly wonder whether the Bush administration made a mistake months before the start of the war by stopping the military from attacking his camp in the northeastern part of that country.

...

Another factor, though, was fear that a strike on the camp could stir up opposition while the administration was trying to build an international coalition to launch an invasion of Iraq. Lawrence Di Rita, the Pentagon's chief spokesman, said in an interview that the reasons for not striking included "the president's decision to engage the international community on Iraq." Mr. Di Rita said the camp was of interest only because it was believed to be producing chemical weapons. He also cited several potential logistical problems in planning a strike, such as getting enough ground troops into the area, and the camp's large size.

Now would be a good time to remind the world that the reason the Bush administration didn't take out the terrorist al-Zarqawi five years ago is because they needed to have a terrorist in Iraq in order to justify the invasion and occupation of that country.